DOCSLIB.ORG

Power Between Habitus and Reflexivity – Introducing Margaret Archer to the Power Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Power Between Habitus and Reflexivity – Introducing Margaret Archer to the Power Debate This is a repository copy of Power between Habitus and Reflexivity – Introducing Margaret Archer to the Power Debate. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/94883/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Vogler, G (2016) Power between Habitus and Reflexivity – Introducing Margaret Archer to the Power Debate. Journal of Political Power, 9 (1). pp. 65-82. ISSN 2158-379X https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2016.1149309 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Power between Habitus and Reflexivity – Introducing Margaret Archer to the Power Debate Abstract This article introduces Margaret Archer’s research on reflexivity to the power debate, alongside Pierre Bourdieu’s already influential concept of habitus. Both offer significant insights on social conditioning in late modernity. However, their tendency to the extreme of social determinism and voluntarism must be avoided. To do so, this article adopts Haugaard’s family resemblance concept of power, describing habitus and reflexivity as an important new binary of power instead of a conceptual zero-sum game. This strengthens the explanatory role of agency, central to the three dimensions of power, without losing sight of constitutive, structural power. It also helps overcome the habitus-reflexivity dichotomy in social theory and provides a starting point to evaluate Archer’s work from a power perspective. Keywords Family resemblance, habitus, reflexivity, Margaret Archer, Pierre Bourdieu, late modernity Introduction In the 20th century, the transformation of the scientific discussion on power followed wider changes in the social sciences. The debate originally profited from the emergence of modern political science and focused on state-centred forms of power (Berndtson 2014). Today, it is constituted by numerous positions, accounting for more diffuse notions of power (Haugaard and Ryan 2012). This historical context becomes relevant when considering how and why Margaret Archer’s work should be introduced to the 1 power debate. Thus, this article argues that Archer’s work provides an important and necessary addition, while acknowledging the power literature’s diverse range of normative, ontological, theoretical and empirical positions. In doing so, it focuses on her work on reflexivity, which can be introduced alongside its already established counterpart in social theory, Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. Archer developed her account as a response to critical realism lacking an explanation for how structures are mediated through agency. Furthermore, it is a response to conceptualisations of human beings as either autonomous beings of rational choice theory, or as social vessels lacking distinct agential properties. As part of the structure-agency debate, her work can also be seen in opposition to Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory and his work with Ulrich Beck and Scott Lash on reflexivity in late modernity – for the relationship between Archer and Giddens, see Anthony King (Archer 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2012; Beck et al. 1994; Giddens 1979; King 2010). Their differing positions, such as analytical dualism contra duality, and reflexive imperative against reflexive modernisation, have been well documented (Archer 2000, 2003, 2007; Caetano 2015), and cannot be adequately discussed in this article. Instead, this article focuses on Archer’s research on reflexivity in relation to Bourdieu’s habitus. Reflexivity for Archer describes the capacity of human beings to mediate our environment through internal conversation, prior to action. Habitus in contrast captures the social disposition, of which we are unconscious and which enables us to act in certain ways. Crucially, only Bourdieu’s habitus has had a significant impact on the discussions of power, whereas Archer’s theories remain absent. However, Archer’s recent work provides a comprehensive alternative to the current adoption of Bourdieu’s habitus. Her humanist project of defending a stronger form of agency may thus help overcome Bourdieu’s tendency towards social determinism. This, however, 2 first requires adopting a position that introduces her account of agency and reflexivity without its tendency towards voluntarism. The aim is not to reproduce the two sides of the habitus-reflexivity debate in social theory. The argument proceeds in three stages. First, the four dimensional power debate is introduced, identifying both a move to internal and constitutive processes, and a lack of engagement with Archer’s work. Then, this article discusses Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and Archer’s work on reflexivity, as part of the habitus-reflexivity debate and suggests potential criticisms. After establishing both accounts and their respective weaknesses, this article transcends their conflict by adopting Haugaard’s family resemblance concept and the binary signature of power. This opens up the space to explore the link between Archer and the power literature, specifically in relation to the four dimensions of power, and to consider its implications for future research on power distribution in late modernity. The development of the four dimensions of power The debate on reflexivity aims to understand why people react differently to similar circumstances (Chalari 2009), a question reminiscent of Robert Dahl’s (1957: 202) example at the beginning of the contemporary power debate. He describes how some people are perceived to have the power to direct traffic while his attempt to do so would be perceived as mad. In other words, Dahl considers power by asking why similar actions in similar situations may have different effects. Put together, they exemplify the relatedness of the issues of social and political power with the causal powers and mediation processes of reflexivity. This suggests that to talk about reflexivity is to some extent to be concerned with power. 3 While Archer is aware of this connection in her work between reflexivity and social power, she and the commentators on her work do not extend that connection to the power debate. Archer offers numerous references to causal, personal, social, and other forms of power, but the existing engagement with works on power is limited and unsystematic (cf. Archer 2000: 265). The scientific debate on power similarly has not considered the value of Archer’s work for power analysis. First, therefore, this section explores the development of the debate on power, to understand how Archer can be introduced into this debate, and the benefits of bringing these together. The modern debate on power as we know it today started in early 20th century, with Berndtson (2014) providing rare insights on American discussions of power before the 1950s. However, Max Weber and Dahl are arguably the central figures of its beginning. Dahl, for example, famously defines power through its episodic exercise as ‘A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do’ (Dahl 1957: 202-203). This is known as the first of three dimensions of power, with Philip Pettit (2008) and the recent special issue of the Journal of Political Power (Baldwin and Hauggard 2015) considering Dahl’s enduring influence. Dahl (1957, 1958, 1961a, 1961b) separates power from resources to show how the US democratic process is pluralist and distinct from the unequal distribution of resources. In contrast, the second and third dimension can be seen as extensions, but also as implicit critique of Dahl’s normative aim (Haugaard 2012b: 354). Instead of the pluralist emphasis, the second dimension of Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) argues that power may act prior to the democratic process by means of exclusion of topics, intentionally and in favour of actor A against B. Steven Lukes (1974, 2005) challenges the static notion of preferences, suggesting that actor A may influence B’s interests so that B acts against his/her real interests, leading to latent conflict (Lukes 4 1974: 28). This dimension offers an important move away from the rational choice model of agency, which Archer similarly rejects. However, the move towards extensive considerations of internal processes, e.g. reflexivity, remains underdeveloped and raised concerns about its elitist connotations. As Lukes discusses with Clarissa Hayward (2008), this position overemphasises responsibility and blame for so-called “powerful people”. It also causes difficulties for the empirical focus of the previous dimensions, with John Gaventa (1980) offering a rare empirical study using all three faces of power. More recently, the “powercube” may prove a successful adoption of Lukes and Gaventa for an actor-centred approach to empirical power analysis (Hathaway 2015). Peter Digeser added a fourth dimension in The Fourth Face of Power (1992), despite Lukes’ claim that his position and the Foucauldian understanding of power are incompatible (Haugaard 2012b: 354). The fourth dimension or “face” of power describes the subjectification of human beings into social beings as part of the system. It became popular in IR scholarship following Michael Barnett’s and Raymond Duvall’s Power in International Politics (2005). In their article, the four dimensions are termed as i) compulsory power, ii) institutional power, iii) structural power, and iv) productive power (Barnett and Duvall 2005: 42). Together with further insights from various debates throughout the social sciences, e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brave New World: the Correlation of Social Order and the Process Of
    Brave New World: The Correlation of Social Order and the Process of Literary Translation by Maria Reinhard A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in German Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2008 ! Maria Reinhard 2008 Author's Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract This comparative analysis of four different German-language versions of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) shows the correlation between political and socio- cultural circumstances, as well as ideological differences, and translations of the novel. The first German translation was created by Herberth E. Herlitschka in 1932, entitled Welt – Wohin? Two further versions of it were released in 1950 and 1981. In 1978, the East German publisher Das Neue Berlin published a new translation created by Eva Walch, entitled Schöne neue Welt. My thesis focuses on the first translations by both Herlitschka and Walch, but takes into account the others as well. The methodological basis is Heidemarie Salevsky’s tripartite model. With its focus on author and work, commissioning institution and translator, it was developed as a tool to determine the factors influencing the process of literary translation. Within this framework, the translations are contextualized within the cultural and political circumstances of the Weimar and German Democratic Republics, including an historical overview of the two main publishers, Insel and Das Neue Berlin.
    [Show full text]
  • Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology1
    Facing an Unequal World 3 Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a 1 Global Sociology Michael Burawoy, University of California, Berkeley, USA2 Yuan-Tseh Lee, former president of Academia Sinica and Nobel Prize Winner, opened the second conference of the Council of National Asso- ciations with a call to scientists the world-over to come together and con- front ever-deepening global problems. Some of the most serious chal- lenges facing mankind -- climate change, energy crisis, and disease – stem from processes that transcend national boundaries and social divi- sions, yet the tools to tackle them are still largely locked within national boundaries and controlled by powerful, vested interests. The problem, Dr. Lee insisted, is not so much globalization but its incompleteness. Devel- oping global communities along with global governance is necessary for tackling global problems. We can no longer retreat back to an insular lo- calism, so we must move forward to realize the potentials of a more com- plete and complex globalization. He posed the challenge to sociology: how did we respond? As sociologists we specialize in studying the downside of globaliza- tion, the obstacles to a globalization that will benefit humanity. We are experts in the ways inequality and domination present the deepest barriers to tackling the daunting challenges of our epoch. We postulate conditions for overcoming such barriers while criticizing false solutions that redis- tribute rather than diminish the ill-effects incomplete globalization. It is the presumption of this conference that for sociologists to address the exclusion and oppression underlying poverty and war, disease and envi- ronmental degradation on a global scale, our scientific community must itself first assume a global character ruled by dialogue and accountability We gathered together in Taipei, therefore, to examine our own discipline through the bifocal lens of domination and inequality – a risky but neces- sary project -- so as to create and embrace a global sociology that is equal to the global tasks we face.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphogenetic Approach and Immanent Causality: a Spinozian Perspective*
    Received: 4 October 2017 Revised: 10 June 2018 Accepted: 18 June 2018 DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12181 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The morphogenetic approach and immanent causality: A spinozian perspective* Karim Knio Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Erasmus Abstract University Rotterdam, The Netherlands The morphogenetic approach as powered by analytical Correspondence dualism offers an appealing account of the processes Karim Knio, Institute of Social Studies – – (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The whereby people through their reflexivities reflect Netherlands. back on structures and cultures during the double Email: [email protected] and triple morphogenesis of agency. However, in order to further specify an account of social change, this paper argues that it would be helpful to provide an account of what occurs in the other direction as well: from the direction of structures and cultures, between each other and towards people, also at the points of double and triple morphogenesis of agency. This article is therefore a theoretical piece that proposes a reading of the morphogenetic model imbued with an enlightened understanding of immanent causality, driven by the Spinozian doctrine of parallelism and operationalized by his understanding of the two expressive roles of ideas. KEYWORDS analytical dualism, dispositions (capabilities), immanent causality, role of ideas, structure/agency debate Margaret Archer's morphogenetic approach is currently one of the most eminent and highly esteemed accounts of structure and agency in the social sciences. By referring to the concept of *I would like to thank Professor Archer for commenting on an earlier draft of this article. I also would like to thank Aleksandra Piletic for her assistance in preparing this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontogenesis Versus Morphogenesis Towards an Anti- Realist Model of the Constitution of Society
    Bouzanis, C. (2016) Ontogenesis versus Morphogenesis towards an anti- realist model of the constitution of society. Human Studies, 39(4), pp. 569- 599. (doi:10.1007/s10746-015-9376-y) This is the author’s final accepted version. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/118378/ Deposited on: 21 April 2016 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Ontogenesis versus Morphogenesis Towards an Anti-Realist Model of the Constitution of Society Abstract This article firstly criticizes Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Approach for being indecisive about the realist notion of emergence it proposes as well as for her inadequate account of structural conditioning. It is argued that critical realists’ conceptualizations of emergence cannot but lead to inconsistencies about the adequate placement of agents as parts of emergent entities. The inconsistencies to which these conceptualizations lead necessitate an anti-realist model of the constitution of societies which takes into account that social structures are existentially dependent upon ideational elaboration. This alternative anti-realist theoretical perspective is provided by Ontogenesis, within the framework of which the realists’ idea of the ‘necessary and internal relations’ give their place to the ontological pervasiveness of the culturally shared imaginary schemata. Archer’s denial of a collective synchronic impact to social forms is implied in her analysis of morphogenetic cycles, according to which, structural elaboration post-dates social interaction; and this denial is also expressed in this very idea of emergent structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret S. Archer Editor Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity
    Social Morphogenesis Margaret S. Archer Editor Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity [email protected] Social Morphogenesis Series Editor: MARGARET S. ARCHER Centre for Social Ontology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Aims and scope: To focus upon ‘social morphogenesis’ as a general process of change is very different from examining its particular results over the last quarter of a century. This series ventures what the generative mechanisms are that produce such intense change and discusses how this differs from late modernity. Contributors examine if an intensification of morphogenesis (positive feedback that results in a change in social form) and a corresponding reduction in morphostasis (negative feedback that restores or reproduces the form of the social order) best captures the process involved. The series consists of 5 volumes derived from the Centre for Social Ontology’s annual workshops “From Modernity to Morphogenesis” at the University of Lausanne, headed by Margaret Archer. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11959 [email protected] Margaret S. Archer Editor Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity 123 [email protected] Editor Margaret S. Archer Centre for Social Ontology University of Warwick Coventry, UK This volume IV follows the book “Social Morphogenesis”, edited by Margaret S. Archer, which was the first book in the series published in 2013 http://www.springer.com/social+ sciences/book/978-94-007-6127-8, the volume “Late Modernity”, edited by Margaret S. Archer, published in 2014 and the volume “Generative Mechanisms Transforming the Social Order”, edited by Margaret S.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing a Morphogenetic Understanding of Organisational Behaviour
    ADVANCING A MORPHOGENETIC UNDERSTANDING OF ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR An Investigation into the Psychological Mechanisms and Organisational Behavioural Tendencies of Autonomous Reflexivity By Royston Francis Meriton Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds Leeds University Business School September 2016 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his/her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. ©2016 “The University of Leeds” Royston Francis Meriton Acknowledgement “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery None but ourselves can free our mind…” Bob Marley (1945 – 1981) RIP To Thierry and Keisha Nicky and Mark thank you for your patience and confidence showed in me. I cannot express enough in words how much your guidance has been valued. Granny, you have been my rock, you may never know how much your influence runs deep in this work. I thank Professor Ann Cunliffe for her comments on an earlier draft and Dr Andy Brown for lending a listening ear. Without her confidence and understanding this work would not have been possible, a special mention goes to Professor Margaret Archer for her informal guidance, you are an inspiration to many. A special mention also goes to Maha, a friend I have shared many a thought with, you have the ability to inspire even without trying. All of this would have been but a fleeting illusion without Richard, thank you.
    [Show full text]
  • Mouzelis, Archer and the Concept of Social Structure
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Crossref SOCIOLOGY Vol. 32 No. 3 August 1998 509–522 CONCEPTUALISING CONSTRAINT: MOUZELIS, ARCHER AND THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE KIERAN HEALY Abstract This paper outlines and evaluates recent contributions by Nicos Mouzelis and Margaret Archer to the structure–agency debate. Mouzelis offers an internal reconstruction of Giddens’s structuration theory; Archer an external alternative. I show that, although representing an advance on Giddens’s position, Mouzelis’s account fails because he relies on the former’s definition of structure as comprising rules and resources. I then examine Archer’s solution to the problem. I argue that her definition of activity-dependence makes her account of the relationship between agents and structures unclear. I outline an alternative account in terms of super- venience, and argue that it contains the minimum ontological claim necessary for a realist understanding of the structure–agent relationship. Key words: Archer, Mouzelis, social ontology, social structure, supervenience. This paper evaluates two recent attempts to prune the hardy perennial of structure and agency. In their recent writing, both Nicos Mouzelis and Margaret Archer offer alternatives to Anthony Giddens’s structuration theory (Mouzelis 1995, 1996; Archer 1995, 1996b). The renewed attention paid to older writing in this field, and particularly to the work of David Lockwood, has caused McLennan (1995:117) to note ‘a loose but noticeable neo- traditionalist revival’ in sociological theory. The two authors exemplify this trend in different ways. Mouzelis says we should go ‘back to sociological theory,’ whereas Archer sees Lockwood as a forebear but explicitly tries to formulate a new research paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret Archer and a Morphogenetic Take on Strategy Abstract The
    Margaret Archer and a morphogenetic take on strategy Abstract The morphogenetic framework developed by the social theorist Margaret Archer is outlined in order to suggest what it might bring to the study of strategy. It is contrasted to practice-based approaches, notably those associated with the work of Richard Whittington and the domain of strategy as practice. Archer’s work provides a non-deterministic approach which enables the situating of moments of strategic practice in a wider context. Its stress on agential reflexivity opens up interesting lines of inquiry, not least on the language of strategizing facilitated and encouraged by the multinational corporation. The approach needs to pay more attention to practices, notably organizational routines, but it offers rich resources to the student of organizational strategy. Keywords Margaret Archer; critical realism; strategy; structure; agency; reflexivity 1. Introduction Margaret Archer is a major figure in the world of social theory and sociology. Starting as a sociologist of education she has developed a distinctive approach to the study of society through her engagement with the philosophical tradition of critical realism. Through a critique of how these ideas have been applied in the social domain, she has progressively developed and refined a view of what she terms the ‘morphogenesis’ of society. This view, recognising that society is activity dependent and is changed and reproduced through the activities of human agents who operate in conditions not of their choosing, has had increasing traction in many domains of 1 inquiry, not least in the field of organization studies. Her body of work is extensive and complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Fertility and Ideology: a Study of the Relation Between Selective Memory and Childbearing Among American Whites
    Fertility and Ideology: A Study of the Relation between Selective Memory and Childbearing among American Whites Tim F. Liao & Libin Zhang University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Abstract In this paper, we venture to go beyond the usual literature on fertility and ideology, and study ideology as reflected in people’s memory of social and historical events. By doing so, we bring together the literature on collective memory and that on fertility differentials. We analyze the 1993 General Social Survey to understand the relation between childbearing behavior and selective memory of certain historical and social events representing political and religious ideology. Our results demonstrate that certain generation-based selective memory items, as reflected in the interaction between memory scores and age cohorts, are clearly related to the respondents’ levels of fertility. Indeed, ideology is important in explaining fertility, but the effect cannot be captured by the conventionally conceived instrument such as the liberal-conservative scale or certain measures of religion commonly used in instruments including the General Social Survey. Rather, our analysis shows that ideology resident in selective memory matters as a fertility differential, in particular for the older cohorts. Introduction Ideology-related fertility differentials have long been demographers’ concern. Attention was particularly paid to a form of ideology represented by religion. One may trace this research tradition back to about four decades ago (Ryder and Westoff 1971; Whelpton, Campell, and Patterson 1966). The interest in the influence of religion on fertility has remained high in recent years (see, e.g., McQuillan 2004). If one examines one religion only, however, the influence of ideology still is discernable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emotionalisation of Reflexivity
    Edinburgh Research Explorer The Emotionalization of Reflexivity Citation for published version: Holmes, M 2010, 'The Emotionalization of Reflexivity', Sociology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 139-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509351616 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1177/0038038509351616 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Sociology General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. Oct. 2021 The Emotionalization of Reflexivity Mary Holmes Department of Sociology Flinders University [email protected] Biography: Mary Holmes is a senior lecturer in sociology at Flinders University in Australia. She has published various articles relating to her empirical work on distance relationships and to her other research interests in the sociology of the body and in social movements and emotions. She has recently published The Representation of Feminists as Political Actors (VDM, 2008) What is Gender?(Sage, 2008) and Gender in Everyday Life (Routledge, 2007). 1 The Emotionalization of Reflexivity Abstract Reflexivity refers to the practices of altering one’s life as a response to knowledge about one’s circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Isa Bulletin NO 19 (PRINTEMPS 1979) NO
    isa bulletin NO 19 (PRINTEMPS 1979) NO. 19 (SPRING 1979) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1978-1982 PRESIDENT: lnst. of Philosophy & Sociology Juan Linz Ulf Himmelstrand Nowy Swiat 72 Guido Martinotti Sociological Institute 00-330 Warszawa Kh. N. Momdjian Sturegatan 2 B POLAND Stefan Nowak S-752 23 Uppsala Pamela Roby SWEDEN VICE-PRES. & CHAIRPERSON, Alexander Szalai PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Francisco Zapata VICE-PRES. & CHAIRPERSON, Ralph Turner MEMBERSHIP & FINANCE Department of Sociology COMMITTEE: University of California EXECUTlVE SECRETARIES: Fernando Henrique Cardoso Los Angeles, Ca. 90024 Céline Saint-Pierre CEBRAP U.S.A. Kurt Jonassohn Alameda Campinas, 463-13° 01404 Sao Paulo, SP MEMBERS: BRAZIL Akinsola Akiwowo ISA SECRETARIAT: Joseph Ben-David C.P. 719, Succursale "A" VICE-PRES. & CHAIRPERSON, Jacques Dofny Montréal, Qué. H3C 2V2 RESEARCH COUNCIL: Leela Dube CANADA Magdalena Sokolowska Anne-Marie Guillemard Tel:(514) 282-4634 Polish Academy of Sciences Shogo Koyano Cable - ISAGRAM MONTREAL SUB-COMMITTEES RESEARCH COORDINATlNG Shogo Koyano Margaret Archer COMMITTEE: Alexander Szalai Andrée Michel Magdalena Sokolowska, Chairperson Francisco Zapata Else ~yen Leela Dube Tom Bottomore Akinsola Akiwowo PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Katy Brooks Joseph Ben-David Ralph Turner, Chairperson (one additional member remains to be Anne-Marie Guillemard (members to be elected) elected) Enzo Mingione Stefan Nowak Else Oyen PUBLICATlONS COMMITTEE: STA TUTES REVISION COMMITTEE: Pamela Roby Jacques Dofny, Chairperson Ulf Himmelstrand, Chairperson Guido Martinotti Albert Cherns MEMBERSHIP & FINANCE COMMITTEE: Arthu: Meier Juan Linz Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Chairperson Gennadi Osipov Alexander Szalai CONTENTS Report on the Meeting of the Publications Calendar of Future Meelings ..........•...... p.13 Committee . ....... ...... p.2 Journals p.15 Report on the Meeting of the Statutes Revision Commitlee p.2 Olher Informalion p.15 ISA Grants lo Research Committees .....•..
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret Archer
    From Margaret Scotford Archer, Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1995. Pages 59-61. Elisionism Margaret Archer PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:00:02 UTC Contents Articles Margaret Archer 1 Elisionism 2 Holism 3 Atomism 10 Emergentism 19 Morphogenesis 24 References Article Sources and Contributors 27 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 28 Article Licenses License 29 Margaret Archer 1 Margaret Archer Margaret Scotford Archer (born 20 January 1943) spent most of her academic career at the University of Warwick, UK, where she was for many years Professor of Sociology. She is now a professor at l'Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. She is best known for coining the term elisionism in her 1995 book Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. She studied at the University of London, graduating B.Sc. in 1964 and Ph.D. in 1967 with a thesis on The Educational Aspirations of English Working Class Parents. She was a lecturer at the University of Reading from 1966 to 1973. She is one of the most influential theorists in the critical realist tradition. At the 12th World Congress of Sociology, she was elected as the first woman President of the International Sociological Association, is a founder member of both the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and the Academy of Learned Societies in the Social Sciences. She is a Trustee of the Centre for Critical Realism. She has supervised many PhD students, many of whom have gone on to contribute towards the substantive development of critical realism in the social sciences.
    [Show full text]